Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
problem. you know, clinton took that approach in 1993. he cut defense way back. i think the president could do a little bit more to attract some people over to his side if he did that. but i'm just struck by the fact that we've got this completely outside game. >> right. >> there's not a lot going on on the inside in terms of real negotiation. but we'll get there. >> and steve, this is a point we brought up last hour. you know, everybody is debating over raising top rates for people making $250,000 or more. you look -- tom's talking about $88 trillion. you look at the small percentage, these tax increases as part of the bigger problem, and you realize that we're not even having a serious discussion right now. we're obsessed on something that's not going to save us. >> well, that's true. first, with respect to what david said, i think partly why they're playing an outside game is because they've been criticized in the past of playing too much of an inside game. the president's criticized himself for not taking his message outside, telling his story. secondly, i do think the president h
up for secretary of state, putting john kerry up for defense? that's an easy nomination to make. you know, raising -- >> boy, would that be a bad idea. >> -- raising the contention level. they don't like susan rice. they don't like our tax proposals. they don't like our budget compromises. they're against everything. >> well, politically, it would be a tough pill for the gop. i mean, they'd be slammed on a number of fronts, you know. you've got the optics of the party going against a susan rice and all that the crazy, you know, conversation around her has led to. you'd have, then, the serious conversation on the budget and again the party of no mantra would begin to surface or resurface. so i think as a political play, yeah. the president could go all in and put all of that on the table. but i think the seignanesaner h would prevail. they don't want to complicate this too much. they don't want to make it much more difficult for them to get the bargain on both fronts. they would like to have their rice and their cake. and the fact -- the fact of the matter is that the president is goi
, on reforming those systems to save medicare and medicaid, social security, cutting defense, reforming the taxes, then do not meet -- if he doesn't want to meet halfway, but i've got to tell you, i am heartened with what i saw in the president's tone yesterday. i loved hearing him tell a group of americans yesterday, hey, we're going to get this thing done. i feel good about it. i love that he agreed to sit down with john boehner one on one. richard, you've done negotiations on all levels. i really liked the tone the president was sending. and by the way, i felt like charles krauthammer did a couple of days ago. because the president seemed to be saying -- and you've said it, too, along with geithner -- we won. the other side's going to cave. the president's changing his tone, and i think that is great not only for the american people, i think it's great for the president. >> i think you're right. there's a sense that people have once again remembered the basic rule of negotiation. in a funny sort of way, you've got to help the guy you're negotiating with because you need a partner to succeed. y
, which is significant reform on medicare. which are significant cuts in defense, significant cuts in discretionary spending. some loopholes closed. if part of the deal was meeting the president halfway, say 37% instead of 39.6%, would that be a possibility for the majority of our caucus? >> well, you know, the republicans do not believe that increasing rates really solves the problem. what we believe is we need tax reform and that's where we have been putting those kind of proposals on the table. >> and i believe that too. my question is this, though. do republicans believe that a deal is so necessary that if the president is willing to give on entitlements and spending and other discretionary spending and other areas that he doesn't want to give on that republicans understand they may have to do some things they don't like doing. one of that may be meeting the president half way on raising the top marginal tax rate. >> well, we need to get the negotiations underway. and we need the president to come into those negotiations. we need him to be serious. him to be looking at the spen
. >> and he's defensive about it. and he's stubborn about it. there's something much deeper going on. he understands football, rex ryan, so he knows objectively that mark sanchez is not getting the job done and hasn't for the last couple of years. so it defies credibility that you wouldn't at least give another guy a shot. or when you did give another guy a shot in greg mcelroy, he won the game for you, so maybe give him a shot this week. >> i can understand saying tim tebow's not the quarterback that i want to go with, but you had mcelroy who played on a national championship team, he grew up with his father being a coach for the dallas cowboys. he gets it. he came in off the bench last week, won the game, and you're not dressing him the next week? it's like rex ryan wants to be fired. >> it's selfish also because you have to say as a coach, i want to give these other guys a chance to win. and we'll start mark, but we're going to go with the guy that can help win this game because everybody's practicing hard and we want to win which makes it even more curious because rex is a good coach
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)